You can't believe a loving God can stand the sight of a lion killing an antelope but He can barbecue millions of humans in a lake of fire. Interesting doctrinal positions.

That's your spinning, Darius, not my words.

It would be nice if you would enter into genuine dialogue by actually addressing the argument from a biblical perspective, rather than taking drive-by pot shots at the people involved.

So, can you address the argument on a biblical basis? For that matter, a bit of science would be fine too.

This is not at all what I said. I said this is not a sight which is in harmony with a perfect and ideal world created by a loving God. Of course, in the less-than-ideal conditions brought about by the entrance of sin, death itself became a necessary evil.


As I said, with the entrance of sin, death itself became a necessary evil. The destruction of sin is necessary for the good of the universe, and unfortunately those who cling to sin will perish in its destruction. However, even to them this will be a merciful thing - death is preferable to the miserable quality of life sin affords.

Why are we afraid to admit to what we believe? Must I use a thousand words to say what I can say in twenty so that people can feel good about themselves? The bottom line is just as I posted. She holds to conflicting beliefs about death.

Rosangela,
You said, "I don't think this is the case. The fact that there will be no marriage in the new earth makes clear that it wasn't God's plan that human beings procreated forever."

Well, here's a question based on your line of thinking.

God created Adam and Eve, two perfect beings, with NO need to recreate (per your suppostition). Now, why create two DIFFERENT sex's if you don't need to recreate? Why have a man and a woman, why not just two of the same, or two people who are androgynous? Or, if they were infact created to reproduce, how does your argument stand up? Why would Adam and Eve "cover" up after original sin, they wouldn't even have any genetialia to cover up, as per your line of reasoning tells me they wouldn't have any sexual organs; no breasts, no ovaries, nor any ability to reproduce. Did those organs "evolve", at the moment sin happened? As that same line of reasoning has been used with the animal argument.

I say, if there was no need to reproduce, per God making perfect people, and no need for death, He would not need to make 2 different types of people to reproduce. But if you say, well, they were to reproduce and take over the world, then would God have plans to some day remove those parts of the "perfect" beings bodies, after Eden was full?

You see, I just don't know how you can think that there was NEVER to be death. Everything on this planet goes thourgh cycles, life and death, there's nothing that does not. Not even Jesus, when He came here. There is no physical evidence for eternal life, without death. No physical evidence in any type of record, and even Our Father's Son died, just like everything else. All things in nature (and life as we know it) are built on the premise of reproduction, and thus death.

Now, if I'm wrong on my line of questions, please (I know you will) let me know how I'm wrong, and I'll rephrase it.

What conflicting beliefs do I hold to about death?

Here's another question regarding the flood.

Were there rainbow's before the flood?

fun2believe,

What I said was, "The fact that there will be no marriage in the new earth makes clear that it wasn't God's plan that human beings procreated forever."
Before sin, God told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen. 1:28). So, of course, God's plan was that the human race multiplied until the earth was full. What would happen after that is a matter of speculation. One of the possibilities is that, after the earth was full, marriage as an institution would continue but reproduction would cease, that is, everybody would be married but no more children would be born. Another possibility is that the human race would be elevated to the angelic state (like Jesus said will happen after the resurrection), and then marriage itself would cease to exist.
Anyway, what I don't understand is why you think a loving God would create people to suffer and die. The Bible says that
"The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), and that
"As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, ... so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).
So death is the result of sin. If there had been no sin, there would have been no death.

Death is the result of life. For without life, there can be no death.

Who said that death is suffering? Have you ever died? How can you say it's horrible for God to watch a gazelle eaten by a lion. Maybe He likes to see His creatures doing what they do best, like lions eating gazelle's. You think it's awful to see death, but not everyone see's it that way. In death there is life.

Your own church killed a baboon, so that they could transplant it's heart into a child. Your very own church, the one you pay tithe to. And it was the work of the Lord they were doing. So maybe God can kill for good reason's, like saving us. He sent His son to die, for us. So maybe God does find satisfaction in death, who are we to say.

You don't understand how I can see God using death, and I don't see how you are unable to look around the world you live in and not see the same thing.

And I don't see life without death, it was part of the original plan, you can't say it's not. Clearly death was part of the plan in the fact that it was a choice for us. God gave us the choice, life or death, eat the fruit or don't. We both knew what would happen, so it was planned for. Death and God go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

"The above expressed feelings and ideas are solely those of the author, and not necessarily those of the SDA church, the Bible, EGW, or anybody else for that matter. You dont' have to agree with them, but I would encourage to look at these idea's, weigh their merit, and consult God on them."